NRA says to hell with the Constitution

(Dec. 21, 2012) – A week after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, the National Rifle Association finally broke its silence.

On Friday, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre tried to out-blame the gun-blamers. He focused his attention on Hollywood. He focused his attention on violent video games. He focused his attention on the media.

But somewhere in the midst all that finger-pointing, LaPierre did manage to slip in one policy proposal.

But we find the real kicker in his preferred methodology for getting this done.

“I call on Congress today to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.”

So Wayne, please show me the enumerated power authorizing Congress to fund police officers in schools.

I’ll pause for a moment here.

*crickets*

It simply doesn’t exist.

School security clearly falls within the “numerous and indefinite” objects James Madison insisted were left to the states and the people. It’s simply not a federal issue.

So, once again we find a supposedly “conservative” figure running to the federal government to advance his agenda, despite the blatant unconstitutionality of the action. Odd behavior for the leader of an organization that defines itself by a constitutional provision. If LaPierre thinks Congress can just “do stuff “without any constitutional authorization, I wonder what makes him think they have to pay one iota of attention to the Second Amendment?

Adding to the creepy factor here – and now you will see why I used the term “goon” earlier – check out who Wayne tapped to head up this little endeavor. He appointed former, DEA Administrator and Department of Homeland Security official Asa Hutchinson as director of the National School Shield.

The federal police state – coming to a kindergarten class near you!

The thought of a gunman indiscriminately shooting children in an elementary school tears at all of our hearts. No American ever wants to see something like this happen again. But as I argued previously, we cannot allow our grief and calls to “do something” to drive us toward unconstitutional solutions that will lead to more power centralized in D.C. That poses a far greater danger to America than any deranged shooter.

The gun-ban-nuts want to ignore the Constitution and strip away rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Not surprising.

But now we have the “conservative” response – equally destructive to the Constitution.

Perhaps one of you intellects can explain how putting an armed policeman or whatever in every school is unconstitutional whereas funding public schools in the first place is in the constitution! Let’s here it! ::snore::

@ArnoldZiffle I have always held that funding by the General Government of schools is not in the Constitution, and so does the 10th Amendment Center. In fact, the 10th Amendment Center has articles on this subject, and has recommended literature stating this. That is something that occurs when you support the 10th Amendment in all areas. When you support the 10th Amendment, you will oppose even those things that you wish the General Government could do. The principles of federalism,, popular control of government, and home rule are ideas that bring multiple ideologies and affiliations together.

Here’s how Wayne has the power to call on Congress….They work for US. We are Congress’s bosses. All of us. We vote them in…we vote them out. It’s not rocket science. This Country has gotten so turned around it’s ridiculous. We’ve gotten so accustomed to Congress telling us what to do.

@JessicaShaner The Congress works for the people and states to perform those duties listed under the Copnstitution. Anything outside of those powers is a violation of what the Pirpose of the General Gov’t is under the Constituon. The founders believed in a General Gov’t to do those things which the States cannot do themselves. In calling for a General Gov’t, they believed that when a General Gov’t acted in a proper manner, that it was actually the States acting in unison, When the General Gov’t does anything outside of those things the States can’t do or the Constitution didn’t authorize, the Congress is no longer working for the people through the compact of the States.

@JessicaShaner The Congress works for the people and states to perform those duties listed under the Copnstitution. Anything outside of those powers is a violation of what the Purpose of the General Gov’t is under the Constituon. The founders believed in a General Gov’t to do those things which the States cannot do themselves. In calling for a General Gov’t, they believed that when a General Gov’t acted in a proper manner, that it was actually the States acting in unison. When the General Gov’t does anything outside of those things the States can’t do or the Constitution didn’t authorize, the Congress is no longer working for the people through the compact of the States.

December 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm

JessicaShaner

@AnthonyJamesPalumbo @JessicaShaner Did you listen to the press conference? Or are you just going by the narrative above?

December 26, 2012 at 1:21 am

AnthonyJamesPalumbo

@JessicaShaner I did listen to the press conference. He called on the Congress to appropriate funds for revenues they have no authority under the Constituon to distribute.

As far as the constitution goes the 2nd amendment is not only for self protection but to have a STANDING MILITIA in case of enemy invasion. During WWII Japan wouldn’t even consider invading us because so many Americans have guns

I understand the concern with blatantly having congress make the necessary appropriations to putting armed officers in the schools. However I also see GOA making just as ridiculous or worse comments about armed elementary teachers and blaming the gun free zone for the shooting. Few teachers are going to willingly take up arms. This is a problem I fear without a solution. Whenever someone has the mind to cause mayhem and destruction without regard for their own life, they are going to be able to do it. Taking arms will not prevent it. Armed guards may help, so at least the NRA’s idea does make some sense.

@ChrisSwenson Armed guards may or may not make sense. Personally, I’m concerned about the increasing militarization of our local police forces and the unintended consequences of increasing “security” after every tragic event – especially when federal agencies get involve. We only have to look at the aftermath of 9/11 to find reason for concern. But the bottom line is that security in schools is a state and local issue and should be addressed and debated at that level.

Baloney….lots of teachers are gun owners too. Not everyone thinks guns are bad…it’s the bad people who misuse them that are to be focused on.

Would you display a sign in your front yard that THERE ARE NO GUNS IN MY HOUSE?
of course you wouldn’t unless you have a death wish. If you really believed that tuns are the problem you ought to put that sign up. Well?

December 24, 2012 at 8:07 am

AnthonyJamesPalumbo

@RhondaReichel Balloney to what? Mike Maharrey neither endorsed nor denied the NRA’s view that armed guards should be in every school. What you brought up has nothing to do with Maharrey’s posts. All he said was the NRA doesn’t care about the Constitution because they have called for the General government to police such action. The General Government has no authority to have any control over schools whatsoever. Under the 10th Amendment, this is a state function. The 10th Amendment Center is not a policy center. They are a Constiutuon first center. They let other organizations do the public policy decisions. the Constitution is first priority.

December 24, 2012 at 8:33 am

RhondaReichel

I was referring to the comment saying teachers should NOT be able to carry guns to work….not about the NRA unconstitutional part. I agree it should be left up to the states as so many other things should but this gun control Obama wants is not about leaving it up to the states

Wayne LaPierre was simply saying that if you want to protect these kids “right now” then there needs to be armed security (temporarily) until the states can decide how they want to better protect students. It is going to take legislators in each state several weeks or a few months to decide on a plan at the state level (which they are working on now). The NRA is not saying it should be a police state environment in schools with armed police funded by the feds. For “right now” until the states can get it together, it sure would help. Teachers who have a handgun carry permit or who want to get one, should be able to carry concealed in school to protect the kids. If we trust them enough to shape & mold our kids minds, we should trust them with a handgun. If you don’t trust them, perhaps they should not be working in schools in the first place. The NRA’s National School Shield program does not depend upon massive state funding and will be comprised of volunteers from the community.

@bloomofyouth The General gov’t is the worst entity to temporarily have this program. The General gov’t has nothing, owns nothing, and has no money, except what three people in the States give them. The General Gov’t has no authority to temporarily have any influence in the schools, yet alone to cause another problem through their power. You right, I don’t trust the General gov’t to do anything in the schools, so I don’t trust them to be with or have influence over any school child.

Another reason to leave the statist National Rifle Association and join Gun Owners of America instead. Calling for more power in Congress to fix a problem CREATED by government is not only unconstitutional, it’s just plain idiotic. More: http://bit.ly/VX99Et

I would like to point out that there are many smaller organization similar to the NRA that are purely on a local level. I happen to run into one at a gun show and they told me they did such a good job that the NRA left the state. The person, from what I was able to gather, understood more about the tenth amendment than the average NRA person. Unfortunately, the NRA is so big they tend to gobble up all the attention.

@MichaelBrady I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is the first time you’ve come across the Tenth Amendment Center. We are not “left wing.” Our tenacious opposition to Obamacare would make us pretty piss-poor left wingers. On the other hand, we’re not “right-wingers” either. In fact, we refuse to allow the political establishment pigeon-hole us into its silly boxes. We stand for one thing – follow the Constitution, every issue, every time, no exception, no excuses. And we’ve been standing consistently on this principle for a long time, since 2006, in fact.

@Sean W Unfortunately, most libertarians also support the incorporation doctrine. I’m fact, many libertarians also support full incorporation of the first 8 Amendments.

December 22, 2012 at 6:29 am

Mike Maharrey

@AnthonyJamesPalumbo @Sean Just for the record – I do not support incorporation. In fact, I will be publishing an article on that subject in the very near future!

December 22, 2012 at 6:42 am

AnthonyJamesPalumbo

@Mike Maharrey Awesome. To be clear, I was not in any way suggesting you even nudged at supporting incorporation. If that came across, I didn’t mean for it to. I was just adding that that is my problem with how the NRA goes about proporting to be defending gun rights.

December 22, 2012 at 9:49 am

Mike Maharrey

@AnthonyJamesPalumbo @Mike I didn’t think you were. Just wanted to be clear for all of the readers. And you are absolutely right. More federal power is not the solution to any problem!

December 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm

onetenther

@Mike Maharrey @AnthonyJamesPalumbo @Sean I really believe that the priviliges and immunities clause are not referring to freedoms as the writers always believed in the fact that rights are associated with our natural existence so it can’t be referring to supposed positive grants from the first amendment. I believe this is an equality under the law provision where they are referring to how the law treats each person.

The NRA really doesn’t get it and as much as I support them I am hesitant in joining simply because they don’t understand the tenth amendment’s role in the constitution. Under the X, the power to control weapons falls to local governments. It would be so much easier to convince people that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal if we allow them to have some gun control legislation at the state level. To some, and I am not one of them, the idea of people having access to military grade weapons scares them. Fine, let them have that in their own state or city. It makes them feel more secure and I get to keep my AR LOL

@onetenther The state does not have the right of 2nd Ammendment legislation. The 10th Ammendment does not give the state that power. The 2nd Ammendment specifically states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” not the right of the state or federal government. The 2nd Ammendment is a birthright of every citizen of the United States.

December 25, 2012 at 11:33 am

AnthonyJamesPalumbo

@MelMeskill You cannot make the 2nd Amendment mean simply what you want it to mean. We understand the 2nd Amendment by the actual words used by their meaning at the time of adoption, and how they were understood by the founders. This is how almost every text is analyzed. The Bill of Rights was never understood to apply to the States. We know this first because James Madison wanted them at one point to apply to the States, and complained that there wasn’t any more protections by the General Government against the States other than Article 1, Section 10.(Madison later rejected this idea of an active judiciary, as he moved more and more Jeffersonian as he aged) Furthermore, at the Constitutional Convention, there were 12 Amendments proposed. One of them read:” No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” This Amendment was rejected at the Convention. This shows two things: 1. Some of the founders saw a need for the General Government acting against the States, but well over a supermajority rejected it. 2. It was understood by the founders the First 10 Amendments applied only to the General Government, Otherwise, they wouldn’t have proposed the aforementioned Amendment. The 1st and 7th Amendments already protected the rights of conscience, press, and trial by jury, so those very few founders who included this Amendment obviously wrote it because the 1st Ten Amendments didn’t apply to the States. Second, just read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It reads: “Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Here, it is stated plainly that the Bill of Rights are written for “it’s powers”-“The Congress of the Uited States bupegun and held at the City of New York.” Third, even the hyper-nationalist John Marshall understood the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the States. This was why he said the Bill of Rights are so plainly understood to apply only to the General Government. The justices unanimously agreed with Marshall, stating that the “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments.” The incorporation doctrine has lead to a lazy citizenry. Instead of active participation in state and local governments, freedom lovers have said, “eh-let’s just let the federal courts do our job.” Furthermore, the incorporation doctrine is a lose-lose situation. As we have seen, once the courts apply the Bill of Rights to the States, the States concoct more excuses to the federal government. This in turn allows the General Government to make these excuses for themselves. Besides short term victories for individual citizens, the incorporation doctrine has done nothing to limit the General Government, and in many cases, hasn’t even limited State and local governments.

December 25, 2012 at 2:07 pm

AnthonyJamesPalumbo

@MelMeskill @MelMeskill You cannot make the 2nd Amendment mean simply what you want it to mean. We understand the 2nd Amendment by the actual words used by their meaning at the time of adoption, and how they were understood by the founders. This is how almost every text is analyzed. The Bill of Rights was never understood to apply to the States. We know this first because James Madison wanted them at one point to apply to the States, and complained that there wasn’t any more protections by the General Government against the States other than Article 1, Section 10.(Madison later rejected this idea of an active judiciary, as he moved more and more Jeffersonian as he aged) Furthermore, at the Constitutional Convention, there were 12 Amendments proposed. One of them read:” No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” This Amendment was rejected at the Convention. This shows two things: 1. Some of the founders saw a need for the General Government acting against the States, but well over a supermajority rejected it. 2. It was understood by the founders the First 10 Amendments applied only to the General Government, Otherwise, they wouldn’t have proposed the aforementioned Amendment. The 1st and 7th Amendments already protected the rights of conscience, press, and trial by jury, so those very few founders who included this Amendment obviously wrote it because the 1st Ten Amendments didn’t apply to the States. Second, just read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It reads: “Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” Here, it is stated plainly that the Bill of Rights are written for “it’s powers”-“The Congress of the Uited States bupegun and held at the City of New York.” Third, even the hyper-nationalist John Marshall understood the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the States. This was why he said the Bill of Rights are so plainly understood to apply only to the General Government. The justices unanimously agreed with Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore, stating that the “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments.” The incorporation doctrine has lead to a lazy citizenry. Instead of active participation in state and local governments, freedom lovers have said, “eh-let’s just let the federal courts do our job.” Furthermore, the incorporation doctrine is a lose-lose situation. As we have seen, once the courts apply the Bill of Rights to the States, the States concoct more excuses to the federal government. This in turn allows the General Government to make these excuses for themselves. Besides short term victories for individual citizens, the incorporation doctrine has done nothing to limit the General Government, and in many cases, hasn’t even limited State and local governments.